Return of the Mailbox

No, the mailbox isn’t returning to WND, as I’m still not getting enough opposition mail to justify it. But this is as good a place as any to publicly spank those who wish to cross pens with me. En garde! Claire Sullivan won the right to appear here first, with her lengthy missive assaulting my old column on Gynomythology.

The fact that you are a member of Mensa and therefore supposedly an

intelligent man, I find your opinions as stated in this article utterly

offensive and quite ridiculous.

Mensa membership actually says very little about where one stands in the ranks of the cognitive elite, if the requisite one-in-fifty status is even enough to allow one to be classified there. But the reference provides a measure of warning to those surprised by opinons that unexpectedly contradict their cherished beliefs, a warning that should logically merit at least a cursory inspection of one’s previous assumptions before one dares to pop off in a derogatory manner. And yet to some, it seems red always means go….

Firstly you cannot use the words of one feminist to speak for all of the

feminist movement, let alone all of womankind. Ms de Beauvoir’s words were

not to imply that we shouldn’t allow women to look after their children at

all just that women should be further encouraged to join the workforce for

their own personal development.

If I can’t use the words of a feminist with iconic status to speak for the feminist movement, who would you recommend I use, Josef Stalin? This reminds me of the spoiled little brunette from That 70’s Show: “I can’t be held responsible for anything that comes out of my mouth.” Ms de Beauvoir’s words did not imply that women should not be allowed to look after their children, they stated it outright. “No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different.” Ms Sullivan establishes herself here as a profoundly dishonest historical revisionist. By the way, I have never stated, nor believed for a second, that feminists speak for all women.

Secondly the reason that women have accomplished very little of note

throughout history is primarily due to males having written most of the

history books.

Women have been literate for more than 2,000 years, but with the exception of Ariel Durant, they have largely chosen not to bother recording much history. I imagine this was probably for the same reason that they did not accomplish much of historical note during that time – they had other, more immediate concerns of higher priority, such as caring for their families and trying not to get pillaged by Vikings or the equivalent local barbarians. The above is a prodigiously silly and unfounded assumption, without any evidence to support it.

Thirdly women do not strive to be better than men, just to have an equal

platform….We will see in 20 years time whether equality does bring women

to the fore of many academic and scientific fields. until that day one cannot

sensibly pass judgement.

I’m very skeptical of this, based on the perversion of academic discipline by feminist pseudo-intellectuals over the last 30 years. There are already more women graduating from American universities than men, unfortunately, the Sisterhood has taught far too many of them to reject concepts such as science and logic as being masculine and therefore inappropriate for women. Talk about building your foundation on sand! But I’m content to wait and allow that the verdict may not be completely decisive as yet. Not that anything will change in another 20 years, of course, except to make the failure of women to achieve equal regard in the sciences and other fields more obvious and more embarassing to the feminist movement. Rejecting the Western intellectual canon is a valid choice, it’s just a bad one

And the greatest evidence that a woman has the right to control her own body

surely must be the legions of women that reject you and your repellant


There are a panoply of laws that say a woman has no right to control her own body. Just try to shoot some heroin into it, or sell a kidney, or walk into a prohibited area, and you’ll see just how much control over it you are allowed. As for the argument itself, well, let’s just say that if that is indeed a reasonable basis, the historical evidence tends to support the opposite conclusion.

Four strikes and you’re out, Ms Sullivan. Stick a fork in her, she’s done! So, who’s next?